The full text is available from the above link. The quotes from the resolutions are in bold, and my comments are in italics.
The following resolutions were adopted by the Kentucky Legislature on November 10, 1798, as a protest against the Alien and Sedition Acts passed by Congress. They were authored by Thomas Jefferson, but he did not make public the fact until years later.
1. Resolved, That the several States composing, the United States of America, are not united on the principle of unlimited submission to their general government;
Until Lincoln raped the Constitution during the War to Prevent Southern Independence, the right of secession, since the states preceded the United Collection of States, was almost universally acknowledged to be a right.
but that, by a compact under the style and title of a Constitution for the United States, and of amendments thereto, they constituted a general government for special purposes — delegated to that government certain definite powers, reserving, each State to itself, the residuary mass of right to their own self-government; and that whensoever the general government assumes undelegated powers, its acts are unauthoritative, void, and of no force:
Jefferson held the view that the federal government could ONLY perform the functions that were specifically listed in the Constitution. That is Constitutional. Unfortunately, the Tenth Amendment was murdered long ago. If the people want an EEOC to mess with private businesses, then amend the Constitution. Otherwise, it’s unconstitutional.
that to this compact each State acceded as a State, and is an integral part, its co-States forming, as to itself, the other party: that the government created by this compact was not made the exclusive or final judge of the extent of the powers delegated to itself; since that would have made its discretion, and not the Constitution, the measure of its powers;
Since the federal government basically has nothing to restrain its growth and acquisition of power, what’s to stop it from growing? Nothing, of course. This gives rise to legalized theft via the IRS, income redistribution via Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security, neocons waging wars like the perpetual war on “terror” (I guess it’s a shame that they’re just so darn jealous of us, right? Yeah right.), etc. When the constitution of Sweden was drafted, it was based upon the US Constitution. However, it did not rely on what turned out to be a weak 10th Amendment, but specifically reaffirmed the federalism of the individual cantons.
2. Resolved, That the Constitution of the United States, having delegated to Congress a power to punish treason, counterfeiting the securities and current coin of the United States, piracies, and felonies committed on the high seas, and offenses against the law of nations, and no other crimes, whatsoever;
Martha Stewart should never have been prosecuted by the federal government. It was unconstitutional. D.C. bureaucrats just slobber at the thought of increased power, however. The claim that “interstate trade” is involved has been incredibly abused.
3. Resolved, That it is true as a general principle, and is also expressly declared by one of the amendments to the Constitutions, that “the powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, our prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people”; and that no power over the freedom of religion, freedom of speech, or freedom of the press being delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, all lawful powers respecting the same did of right remain, and were reserved to the States or the people:
If Alabama wanted to make Christianity their official state religion, the federal government couldn’t do jack about it, as much as the ACLU would foam and froth at the mouth about it. If Hollywood wanted to make Buddhism its official municipal religion, the federales couldn’t do anything about that, either. Because, ultimately, the PEOPLE have power, and the government exists to serve them, not the other way around.
the act of the Congress of the United States, passed on the — day of July, 1798, intituled “An Act concerning aliens,” which assumes powers over alien friends, not delegated by the Constitution, is not law, but is altogether void, and of no force.
If it ain’t specifically mentioned in the Constitution as a power of the federal government, it ain’t constitutional.
8th. Resolved, That a committee of conference and correspondence be appointed, who shall have in charge to communicate the preceding resolutions to the Legislatures of the several States: to assure them that this commonwealth continues in the same esteem of their friendship and union which it has manifested from that moment at which a common danger first suggested a common union: that it considers union, for specified national purposes, and particularly to those specified in their late federal compact, to be friendly, to the peace, happiness and prosperity of all the States:
The ultimate check on federal power is the right of secession. When the government of united States ceases to be friendly, peaceful, happy, and prosperous for ALL states (not merely some at the expense of others), secession is a possible answer. Secession, by the way, is constitutional.
that it does also believe, that to take from the States all the powers of self-government and transfer them to a general and consolidated government, without regard to the special delegations and reservations solemnly agreed to in that compact, is not for the peace, happiness or prosperity of these States; and that therefore this commonwealth is determined, as it doubts not its co-States are, to submit to undelegated, and consequently unlimited powers in no man, or body of men on earth: that in cases of an abuse of the delegated powers, the members of the general government, being chosen by the people, a change by the people would be the constitutional remedy; but, where powers are assumed which have not been delegated, a nullification of the act is the rightful remedy: that every State has a natural right in cases not within the compact, (casus non fœderis) to nullify of their own authority all assumptions of power by others within their limits: that without this right, they would be under the dominion, absolute and unlimited, of whosoever might exercise this right of judgment for them:
Because Lincoln forcibly restrained states from maintaining their secession, that basically eliminated whatever restraint there was on federal power. Thus, the federal government expanded exponentially after that (which is exactly what Lincoln wanted, since the “Republican” was really a Whig). Our federal government and its minions basically have unlimited power today because of it. American citizens are under the absolute and unlimited dominion of the federal government.
that if the acts before specified should stand, these conclusions would flow from them; that the general government may place any act they think proper on the list of crimes and punish it themselves whether enumerated or not enumerated by the constitution as cognizable by them: that they may transfer its cognizance to the President, or any other person, who may himself be the accuser, counsel, judge and jury, whose suspicions may be the evidence, his order the sentence, his officer the executioner, and his breast the sole record of the transaction: that a very numerous and valuable description of the inhabitants of these States being, by this precedent, reduced, as outlaws, to the absolute dominion of one man, and the barrier of the Constitution thus swept away from us all, no ramparts now remains against the passions and the powers of a majority in Congress to protect from a like exportation, or other more grievous punishment, the minority of the same body, the legislatures, judges, governors and counsellors of the States, nor their other peaceable inhabitants, who may venture to reclaim the constitutional rights and liberties of the States and people, or who for other causes, good or bad, may be obnoxious to the views, or marked by the suspicions of the President, or be thought dangerous to his or their election, or other interests, public or personal;
This is how you get such silly arguments as that it’s illegal for a business to hire only 7% of their employees of a certain minority if the overall population of that minority group constitutes 14% of the national population. That became a crime in the 20th Century, and it’s amazing how some companies just roll over when such allegations are made (such as the cool $475 million that Coca-Cola paid out for two settlements). There are no set standards for crimes. What is judged to be criminal or not is the mere whim of the government (note—not the people).
Alpha 1 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 4, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1181 times:
The only thing I got out of it was his continued hatred of the Union, his continuing hatred of the second greatest President of all time, and his continuing wishfullness that the traterous Rebels had won the war. That's about it.
IHadAPheo From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 6026 posts, RR: 59 Reply 5, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 19 hours ago) and read 1178 times:
"This gives rise to legalized theft via the IRS, income redistribution via Medicaid/Medicare/Social Security"
Just a thought .. Do you receive any type of government grant, financial aid or does your University receive any type of government funding. If so why should others redistribute their funds to benefit you, why should citizens in other States send their hard earned tax dollars to you (you know States rights and all). Government programs are evil when they are a benefit to others but A-OK when the money goes to the "right" people. If we keep going down this road only the "chosen people" would get the best education, the best health care the best oppertunities (well to the crowd in question we do not mean those "Chosen people").The others would have to do with a seperate and almost equal society, why is all this starting to sound familar??
"Until Lincoln raped the Constitution during the War to Prevent Southern Independence , the right of secession, since the states preceded the United Collection of States, was almost universally acknowledged to be a right
Uh if we go by the States were here first bit I know of a group of people who were here long before the States and if they ever decidied to envoke their claims on their land (you know those nasty treaty's made and revoked by the nasty Feds) we would all be living on their land (ie the Seneca's Grand Island, NY land claim)
The USA in my humble opinion was built on including and welcoming all and embracing the values and opinions of all, but it is a sad commentary on our society when we have turning into a Nation that wants to exclude those who offer opinions that differ from us and want take away some basic humane assistance from those in need while professing their compassionate nature.
The elitist and exclusionary trend in the country is becoming quite disturbing, the idea that some are rewriting history to suit their agenda makes one take a step back and wonder where we are heading as a Nation and who the real enemy is and why we (the US) is hated by so many. I love my contry but I am in fear for it's future due to the actions and beliefs of the radicals afoot today.
Pray hard but pray with care For the tears that you are crying now Are just your answered prayers
TheGov From United States of America, joined Apr 2003, 400 posts, RR: 3 Reply 6, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 18 hours ago) and read 1165 times:
With great hesitation, I have opted to weigh in on this topic. The (overt) topic at hand is the Alien and Sedition Acts of 1798 and the reactions of the states to the Federal Government. I'm going to quote my college history book first and then follow up with some comments.
In seeking to oppose the Alien and Sedition Acts,the Republicans could not rely on the Supreme Court for relief. Indeed, the Court never yet had declared an act of Congress unconstitutional, and the Republicans denied that it had the power to do so. They believed, however, that the recent Federalist legislation, particularly the Sedition Act, was unconstitutional, for the First Amendment stated that Congress should pass no law abridging freedom of speech or of the press. What agency of government should decide the question of constitutionality? The Republican leaders Jefferson and Madison concluded that the state legislatures should decide. They ably expressed their view in two sets of resolutions, one written (anonymously) by Jefferson and adopted by the Kentucky legislature (1798,1799), and the other drafted by Madison and approved by the Virginia legislature (1798). These Kentucky and Virginia resolutions asserted that the federal government had been formed by a "compact" or contract among the states. It was a limited government, possessing only certain delegated powers. Whenever it exercised any additional and undelegated powers, its acts were "unauthoritative, void, and of no force." The parties to the contract, the states, must decide for themselves when and whether the central government exceeded its powers. And "nullification" by the states was the "rightful remedy" whenever the general government went too far. The resolutions urged all the states to join in declaring the Alien and Sedition Acts null and void and in requesting their repeal at the next session of Congress. But none of the other states went along.
Marbry vs. Madison, ruled on in 1798, finally answered the question as to who would deem a law constitutional or unconstitutional. The Supreme Court and the doctrine of law that we know today began with John Marshall and this historic ruling. But it was not without growing pains. Nullification was a nagging question that was finally answered by the Civil War. Abraham Lincoln, in his quest to put down the rebellion, was more or less siding with the Marshall Court. He believed that if each state were to choose which laws it would obey and not obey, then chaos would ensue.
On the question of "unconstitutional" acts by the Federal Government, that is not for us, nor the press to decide. It is for the Supreme Court to decide. The press and others love to throw the term "unconstitutional" about. We all know the drill: Congress passes a law that is very upsetting to some in society. Someone deliberately breaks the law and is arrested. The offender is convicted but appeals. Finally, it arrives before the Supreme Court. It is then and only then that the new law is ruled constitutional or unconstitutional. Remember, on the Court, there are Justices who interpret the Constitution in a very narrow manner and in a very broad manner. And if they elect to hear the case and uphold or strike down the law, then the question is settled. Permanently.
The "covert" topic is how the South was robbed of its independence. What is important to remember is that this argument began essentially in 1789 and was finally concluded in April, 1865. MD-90 wants us to believe that, had cooler heads prevailed, the South would have left peacefully and we would now be perhaps two nations, not one. But, what he as done is pull a resolution passed by a state legislature out of the bag in an attempt to back up his point.
Diamond From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3279 posts, RR: 66 Reply 7, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 17 hours ago) and read 1154 times:
" ... The elitist and exclusionary trend in the country is becoming quite disturbing, the idea that some are rewriting history to suit their agenda makes one take a step back and wonder where we are heading as a Nation and who the real enemy is and why we (the US) is hated by so many. I love my contry but I am in fear for it's future due to the actions and beliefs of the radicals afoot today ... "
Pheo - I'm confused by the labels used in your statement. 'Elitist' is almost always used as a negative label for liberals. 'Exclusionary' and 're-writing history' are current labels thrown at the far-right.
Maybe it's just me - but it seemed that you were wording that in a way not to offend anyone (commendable). But I can't tell your position.
Who is elitist?
Who is exclusionary?
Who is re-writing history?
Who are the radicals afoot today?
My answers would be the Bush White House et al. Is that what you meant?
IHadAPheo From United States of America, joined Sep 2001, 6026 posts, RR: 59 Reply 8, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1132 times:
in my opinion today the true Elitists are some of the neo-conservatives that feel that they are entitiled to use the system to their benefit and those who are not in their circle of wealth are not to be allowed the benefits of the system (gov'). It appears to be a case of them wanting to use the parts of the system that benefit them but removing the parts of the system that benefit those less deserving in their eyes. The same people also feel that their way of life (Religion) is the only proper one and feel the need to make negative comments about the religon of others while claiming to be following the footsteps of a compassionate and loving man (Jesus)
Who is exclusionary??, the above mentioned individuals who again feel that anyone who is not of their satus/beliefs is not entitled to the benefits of society (some have even tried to justify slavery)
Who is rewritting history ???, again the same groups above, taking bits and pieces of the historical texts that support your opinion and omiting parts that do not support your opinion, people that d the same and in most cases do not post their own opinions but just leave the abridged text there without a personal opinion on what they feel about the text.
Who are the radicals afoot today??, The radicals that I speak of here (there are tradicals from all sides) are the people I speak of above, Those who would take away the rights of those who disagree with the proper people, the right to exercise their religion of choice free of discimination for doing so, those who would limit the benefits of society to those again of the "proper" people (seperate and not quite equal), those who would limit free speech to the speech of the "proper" people, those who are xenophobic and want to go back to 40's-early50's where those who were not of the "proper" type were only allowed to exist in the shadowy backround of society were not to disturb the life of "proper" people (know their place)
The Bush white house ?? to an extent, but in fact the real danger is those to the right of of Bush. For just being a Republican is no great evil in itself (I am a Republican), these are truly dangerous ones. As to who I was refering toin this thread I would have to say the people who believe in the message of the thread starter.
To be honest yes I was trying to word my original thread as to not to offend anyone and I am sorry if my babblings were not more clear. As a republican I am frightened my the direction the radicals in the party are taken (the further ight the raicals go the further right the center of my party goes as well).
Pray hard but pray with care For the tears that you are crying now Are just your answered prayers
Diamond From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 3279 posts, RR: 66 Reply 9, posted (8 years 10 months 1 week 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1114 times:
Thanks for the very clear explanation.
Although it is no secret that I am a liberal, I have said this many times:
There is no problem with having conservative views or choosing to be a Republican. However, anyone who calls themselves a "Bush Republican" after the last three years needs to seriously and honestly look in the mirror and ask, why?
I have been very concerned that more Republicans (some that I think highly of) are still blindy throwing their support behind GWB. I don't expect them to support Kerry - but I do expect them to wonder about Bush, and start to look for a change . . . just as you are doing.